Patterns throughout BBC Sherlock

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Would not surprise me if there was some sort of connection between Moriarty and Magnussen.  Probably had some mutual contacts.

[besleybean]

And of course it could turn out that CAM was just doing Moriarty's work while Jim was playing dead!

[Inge l-w]

Dear Carol, I do apologise for my English not being up to par to be clearly understood! Mr. Moffat does not refer to the ACD stories as museum pieces, he refers to "a wealth of Victorian Sherlocks out there" as museum pieces, and they want to do a 21st century version " as opposed to the relics they have become." Obviously, he cannot go on record as saying that the Granada series is what he is specifically talking about, when he discusses a world of hansom cabs and gas streetlights, because there are laws about slander and defamation. It is Mr Gatiss in the extra material of S1 who says they had "the idea of blowing the fog from it", by the way.

And the way things look, a whole act in the special will be taken up by the Victorian set, considering the time they spent filming it, according to whatever tweets became public.

[J.P.]

I am reading Sherlock Chronicles right now and the "blowing the fog" is also there explained as going back to the roots of canon being a very modern stories in their times. I think Mark Gatiss is saying something like: the story is not about Victorian England, it's about two extraordinary men and their relationship. I can quote or make pics ot the text if someone is interested. (I tend to believe more in a printed word, because I assume that at least the main makers have read and authorised the text.)

 

I am actually glad not being influenced by the canon. So I can just enjoy the show for what it is. I remember how unhappy I was about Solaris ripping apart my favorite (and known by heart) novel.

 

Generally I don't have a problem with taking pieces of the original and making something new out of them (it happens in all adaptations), but I certainly can see that people used to the original can be bothered by all those "Wrongs" popping up like in the press conference scene in SiP.

 

Would not surprise me if there was some sort of connection between Moriarty and Magnussen.  Probably had some mutual contacts.

 

I think there certainly is. E.g. how could CAM know about Redbeard? I think I found more than that, but don't remember it right now. Have to go to my MMC (messie mind cellar) and clue for looks.

 

That bonfire is a good find, TOBY! (even if I can see the subtext fueling Johnlock again :P)

 

Where would be the fun in that? I like the winks and nods and many layers in Sherlock. I just love reading between the lines and if I mis- and overinterpret a lot in the process, so be it, at least I'm enjoying myself.

Amen to that!

 

[Boton]

 

Regarding Mr. Gatiss's subtext agenda however, the poor man seems to be trapped between people who complain that he has one and people who complain that he doesn't!  The latter may believe the original Holmes and Watson were thinly-disguised lovers and feel it's about time that was acknowledged -- and may feel betrayed by Gatiss, who as a gay man himself "ought" to implement that point of view more explicitly.

 

What? Oh my god. Let me get this straight (no pun intended): There are people out there who think that just because a man is gay, he is obligated to "promote" gay relationships in all his work? So am I expected to promote monogamy just because I personally have only ever "had" one man? Like, if I went and wrote a character like, say Irene Adler for example, I would be betraying all monogamous people? But where's the fun in making stuff up if you can't explore something different from what you have in real life?

 

Goodness gracious me, I do see the case for the aforementioned interpretation of the old Doyle stories (although I am almost certain that Sir Arthur himself would be appalled by it, having lived and created in very much less enlightened times as ours), but seriously, if people want that, they should go and write it themselves. Hurray for fan fiction - write what you want and for god's sake let others do the same, even if they do earn money with it. And for the record: I think that the relationship in Sherlock is something much more beautiful than a standard love affair.

 

 

 

 

Amen to that.  I would hate to think that I could only ever write characters in plain vanilla monogamous heterosexual relationships just because that's what I have, and, frankly, "it's what I like."  I've gotten the impression from interviews with Gatiss and comments I've heard from Moffat about their writing process that it is Gatiss that often pulls back on the subtext to stay closer to the Victorian experience of the characters (not the Victorian characters, but the experience the Victorian readers would have).  I had the impression that it's Moffat that likes to play with subtext and innuendo.

 

In any event, yes, this relationship is much more beautiful than a sexual love affair -- or, at least, it's a different sort of beauty.  Many relationships have their own internal reason why the relationship must exist, beyond love and loyalty.  You love a close family member because they are blood (and you may even have a biological urge to love them).  You love a spouse in part because of the sexual bond that forms, even if you are not currently having a great deal of sex for some reason or other.  But to love this kind of a soul mate/brother simply out of pure love and loyalty is something tremendously precious, and I love this show for exploring it.

[sittything]

I'm sure plenty of people are not big Sex and the City fans on here, but I've always equated the Sherlock-John relationship to the Carrie-Miranda-Charlotte-Samantha relationship.   I will forever adore Mr. Big's quote regarding Carrie and her friends:   "You're the loves of her life, and a guy would be lucky to come in fourth."

[Boton]

I'm sure plenty of people are not big Sex and the City fans on here, but I've always equated the Sherlock-John relationship to the Carrie-Miranda-Charlotte-Samantha relationship.   I will forever adore Mr. Big's quote regarding Carrie and her friends:   "You're the loves of her life, and a guy would be lucky to come in fourth."

 

Yes!  I love SatC, and I've always loved that line from Big.  He's acknowledging that they are the "mates" she chose, and that he can provide romantic/sexual love and a certain degree of friendship, but it can't replace what the girls have together.

 

I think it's a bit ironic that that relationship was so easily accepted in that way among those women, but people struggle so much with Sherlock and John, insisting that if they share a love, it must be a sexual one.  I can easily hear Mary saying to Sherlock, "You're the love of his life; a gal would be lucky to come in second," and have it mean exactly the same thing it did in SatC.

[Arcadia]

I am willing to bet there are people who hear that line and insist it means the girls ARE in a romantic/sexual relationship. Some people see what they want to see. Not anyone on this forum, of course.  :p

[Arcadia]

I tend to agree, Carol, that whatever happens in the special is not what it appears to be from Setlock.

 

I'm still courting your idea that it's going to be some sort of homage to "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." A spoof of a spoof! That would be brilliant.

 

Would not surprise me if there was some sort of connection between Moriarty and Magnussen.  Probably had some mutual contacts.

And of course it could turn out that CAM was just doing Moriarty's work while Jim was playing dead!

 

I don't know; I can't quite see those two getting along, they'd both think they were supposed to be the boss of the other. And I don't think CAM's mind worked that way anyway; for him it was more about doing whatever he felt like just to prove his power, not cooking up mischief for the sake of it. Whereas Jim was just crazy gone bad, imo. And CAM taking over for Jim? Now that I think about it, CAM struck me as fundamentally lazy, I don't think he could be bothered. I can see maybe CAM and Jim using each other, though.

 

Sherlock, with his dread of being bored, was the natural successor to Jim, imo. If he had been so inclined!

 

...Mr. Moffat does not refer to the ACD stories as museum pieces, he refers to "a wealth of Victorian Sherlocks out there" as museum pieces, and they want to do a 21st century version " as opposed to the relics they have become." Obviously, he cannot go on record as saying that the Granada series is what he is specifically talking about, when he discusses a world of hansom cabs and gas streetlights, because there are laws about slander and defamation....

 

I have to admit, I think calling something a "relic" is neither slander nor defamation. In fact, doesn't "relic" imply a certain sort of reverence? Relics are a piece of our past that we wish to honor or preserve, are they not?

 

As a creative person myself, I can't help but understand the desire to draw inspiration from what has come before, especially something you love; and yet at the same time present it in a way that is new. And I think I'd be very hurt if someone looked at my work and said I was defaming what went before, either by alluding to it, or by altering it. If artists are to be prevented from doing either of those things (borrowing from and/or adding to what went before) there won't be much art made anymore, imo!

 

When I "borrow" a landscape idea from, say, JMW Turner, it's not because I think he did it poorly and I want to prove him wrong. It's because I think he's brilliant and I want to see if I can create something worthy of his legacy. But at the same time, I want this new landscape to be MINE; I don't want people to look at it and say "hey, that's just like Turner." In my experience, most artists tend to be fairly egotistical in that way. :P That's why so many musicians write new songs instead of performing standards over and over, or why authors look for new ways to put words together to tell a story, even though all stories have already been told. 

 

I don't know, maybe "updating" is just what we creative types tell ourselves we're doing, to make ourselves feel better!  Either way, it's sort of painful when someone claims we are destroying what we most love, when what we think we are doing is honoring it.

 

I am actually glad not being influenced by the canon. So I can just enjoy the show for what it is.

 

Amen to that! :D Although ... as an obsessed Tolkien fan, I couldn't help but notice every alteration Peter Jackson made to the LOTR "canon." But I have to admit that didn't stop me from enjoying the movies hugely. Two different media; I have no problem with them existing side by side. I find I DO have a problem with most Tolkien-inspired novels though, but it's for reasons to do with depth of thought rather than execution, if you see what I mean.

 

 

.... E.g. how could CAM know about Redbeard? I think I found more than that, but don't remember it right now. Have to go to my MMC (messie mind cellar) and clue for looks.

 

 Maybe it was in Kitty Riley's newspaper article? (By the way, what paper was that published in? I've never thought to notice. Not CAM's, surely, I don't get the impression they'd thought him up at that point.....)

 

 

I had the impression that it's Moffat that likes to play with subtext and innuendo.

 

I can't imagine whatever gave you that idea! :p

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

.... E.g. how could CAM know about Redbeard? I think I found more than that, but don't remember it right now. Have to go to my MMC (messie mind cellar) and clue for looks.

 

 Maybe it was in Kitty Riley's newspaper article? (By the way, what paper was that published in? I've never thought to notice. Not CAM's, surely, I don't get the impression they'd thought him up at that point.....)

 

 

It looks like the Sun for her article.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Dear Carol, I do apologise for my English not being up to par to be clearly understood! Mr. Moffat does not refer to the ACD stories as museum pieces, he refers to "a wealth of Victorian Sherlocks out there" as museum pieces, and they want to do a 21st century version " as opposed to the relics they have become." Obviously, he cannot go on record as saying that the Granada series is what he is specifically talking about, when he discusses a world of hansom cabs and gas streetlights, because there are laws about slander and defamation. It is Mr Gatiss in the extra material of S1 who says they had "the idea of blowing the fog from it", by the way.

 

Your English is fine, Inge, I probably just misread what you said.  I wouldn't want to comment on what you've heard Moffat say without hearing the quote, but I do know that I've heard him (in audio commentaries, DVD documentaries, and interviews) say that he is very fond of many of the Victorian Holmes movies and television shows -- it's just that he and Gatiss wanted to do something different, set in the current day.  And I can certainly understand that desire.  I remember watching the Brett series and saying, "Well, nobody ever needs to bother doing that again" -- because it would be nearly impossible to improve on it.

 

Apparently Moftiss feel the same way about Brett's series, because there's at least one Sherlock scene that's clearly borrowed from it: The Brett episodes differ very little from canon, but they did change the locale of the child-rescue scene in "The Priory School" to a dark cavern, with the rescuers carrying blazing torches. I'm virtually certain that's the origin of the child-rescue scene in "Reichenbach" -- in the "cavernous" abandoned factory, with modern "torches."

  

They've also borrowed quite a bit from Billy Wilder's Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, including the innuendo (which they've toned down considerably for Sherlock!).  But as Arcadia says, their borrowing seems to be a compliment to the originals (Doyle, Brett, and Wilder), not a complaint.  I believe it's technically called an hommage.

 

I've gotten the impression from interviews with Gatiss and comments I've heard from Moffat about their writing process that it is Gatiss that often pulls back on the subtext to stay closer to the Victorian experience of the characters (not the Victorian characters, but the experience the Victorian readers would have).  I had the impression that it's Moffat that likes to play with subtext and innuendo.

I've heard the same thing, with the two of them thinking it's ironic that people tend to assume the "gay" jokes must be Gatiss's doing, just because he's the one who's gay. There's a serious lack of imagination in this world!

 

I think it's a bit ironic that that relationship was so easily accepted in that way among those women, but people struggle so much with Sherlock and John, insisting that if they share a love, it must be a sexual one.

 

As Arcadia says, some people probably don't accept it with those women either.  But in general, I think people do more readily accept the idea of a close platonic friendship between women than between men.  As to why that might be, in my experience, straight men are very careful to avoid doing anything that might lead people to suspect they're gay, whereas straight women don't waste much time worrying about it.  Which of course leads to another level of "why?" -- and I have no idea.

[Arcadia]

Maybe this isn't a pattern exactly, but I thought of this while I was driving around today ... Season 1 and 2 both end with Sherlock's world descending into chaos; S1 with the boys on the verge of being blown up, S2 with John broken and Sherlock facing the future alone.
 
S3, on the other hand, inverts that pattern; it starts with Sherlock's world in pieces, and gradually restores order. He slowly wins back John's presence, then his friendship; he takes steps toward reconciliation with Mycroft, starts to form a little family with John and Mary and a baby on the way. He even gets Molly back (whether he appreciates it or not.) Heck, he even gets Jim back! And in the final scene, he gets his life back, both literally and figuratively; he is restored not only to the land of the living but to being Sherlock Holmes, Dragon Slayer. Neat!

For the first time I understand why some people say the series has come full circle and could stop now. If it weren't for all those pesky unanswered questions, I think I might agree.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I never thought of it that way before, but yes definitely full circle.  He has a case to solve that isn't likely to kill him or leave him overly board in the process (so if a gun's going off it is for self defense, notifying the police, or he's being shot at & drugs are not likely to be a factor either unless it's forced on him).

[sfmpco]

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

I was also almost  .  It is written brilliantly and fairly accurately.  Endorphins are being released.

[besleybean]

Aw.

[Inge l-w]

Dear all, the creators have repeatedly gone on record to state that they are not writing detective stories but stories ABOUT a detective and his ever - growing entourage (Mr Moffat, to be specific), but if they fall back on that mediocre film after having almost two years to do something fresh, creative and, above all, entertaining, then we might as well ask them what Sherlock asks Mrs Hudson in HLV: "Then what is the point of you?"

P. S. Except the whole Priory School ending, dear Carol, there is such a Belstaff moment in The Illustrious Client just before they go out to eat, and I just noticed it because of your perceptive analysis! Thank you!

[T.o.b.y]

Some people see what they want to see. Not anyone on this forum, of course.  :P

 

Oh, I always look at books and films the way I want to. I don't even see anything wrong with that - these things were created for my amusement, so why not get the most out of them? That said, I certainly did not go looking for "they are a couple" subtext in Sherlock, it just kind of hit me in the face watching the third season and I suddenly understood what people had been going on about all along in retrospect. It reminds me of one of my favorite John quotes: "How come I can see you and I don't even want to?"

 

I should probably say, I try to see what I want to see but sometimes I see an awful lot more and there are plenty of things I wish I had never laid my eyes on. This does not go for the above mentioned subtext, though. It doesn't bother me. I think it's fun, and rather harmlessly so. It's not text, it's just a joke, a wink, a nod, the acknowledgment of a certain undercurrent in the original that I sure as hell picked up on when I was reading the stories even though I "knew" it was unintentional, and to my mind, it betrays a sensibility on the part of the Sherlock writers as readers that I very much like.

 

See, when I watch Sherlock, it is like someone is talking to me about the books a lot of the time. It's like "and don't you think it was like this? Have you noticed this? Don't you think Holmes saying this in Victorian times would equal this today?". I think the whole series Sherlock is based on Doyle subtext, and not just about the relationship between the principal characters, but about everything. It's a funny, loving, brilliant, very insightful running commentary on the original, and I adore it for that, because I've always wished I had someone I could talk to about my books, and there aren't very many people I know who read the same ones that I do. Just one person, actually, and he is 65 years old and won't be around for ever, besides not being prone to talking much at all.

 

I am glad that people can love this show without having read the original, and it is proof of how good it is. But for me personally, the context provides most of the enjoyment.

 

 

Maybe it was in Kitty Riley's newspaper article? (By the way, what paper was that published in? I've never thought to notice. Not CAM's, surely, I don't get the impression they'd thought him up at that point.....)

 

I suppose you are right, but this is now definitely part of my headcanon: Kitty worked for a newspaper owned by Magnussen. Just because.

 

 

I've heard the same thing, with the two of them thinking it's ironic that people tend to assume the "gay" jokes must be Gatiss's doing, just because he's the one who's gay. There's a serious lack of imagination in this world!

 

That's a very mild way of putting it, Carol... I think it is downright offensive to assume that just because a man is gay, that will influence all his work in a certain way and he will drag his sexuality into everything he creates. Why are people so often defined by their sexual orientation? Sex is something pretty private, if you ask me. (Of course a lot of gay people are just as guilty of this kind of thinking as straight people. My best friend was asked once why she hung around people like me - "they're all against us". Reportedly, she looked back at the person talking, said "us?!" with a look of disgust on her face and walked off. I love her. And if anybody thinks that means I want to bang her, fine. Go ahead. I really, truly and honestly do not care. I'm like Sherlock that way. :lol:)

 

Maybe this isn't a pattern exactly, but I thought of this while I was driving around today ... Season 1 and 2 both end with Sherlock's world descending into chaos; S1 with the boys on the verge of being blown up, S2 with John broken and Sherlock facing the future alone.

 

S3, on the other hand, inverts that pattern; it starts with Sherlock's world in pieces, and gradually restores order. He slowly wins back John's presence, then his friendship; he takes steps toward reconciliation with Mycroft, starts to form a little family with John and Mary and a baby on the way. He even gets Molly back (whether he appreciates it or not.) Heck, he even gets Jim back! And in the final scene, he gets his life back, both literally and figuratively; he is restored not only to the land of the living but to being Sherlock Holmes, Dragon Slayer. Neat!

For the first time I understand why some people say the series has come full circle and could stop now. If it weren't for all those pesky unanswered questions, I think I might agree.

 

Yay! A convert! Come into the light! :P

There will always be unanswered questions, no matter how long the show goes on. I am seriously considering to stop watching after series 3.  But I need to have a look at the special first, and series 4, if it ever does come into existence. Just if I don't like them, it won't much matter, because I feel as if I have a complete product already.

 

 

That is one of the best summaries for Sherlock that I have ever come across.

[Inge l-w]

Think of me being "whinging", as besleybean put it in another discussion, but a medic is an army male nurse/orderly in any army. Can't these people at least get their terms straight before they unleash their opinions on the world? Dr Watson is a "Porte-épée" officer, not a NCO!

[J.P.]

The snippet above is endearing. Even if I have problem with that dancing. How can you like to dance if you don't like being around people?

 

I also think about the whole series as a closed entity somehow, but I thought maybe it's just because I had seen it all at once.

 

As for patterns - I have written something already in this forum, but don't recall what it was and where...

[T.o.b.y]

How can you like to dance if you don't like being around people?

 

I don't know how, but you certainly can. I love to dance and I still avoid groups, social events and small talk and need a lot of alone time to be happy. Liking dancing and being unsociable is not mutually exclusive.

 

[J.P.]

But you at least hav a partner, don't you?

[Boton]

The snippet above is endearing. Even if I have problem with that dancing. How can you like to dance if you don't like being around people?

 

 

 

 

Ballet?  Contemporary?

 

Also, I dance ballroom and have for over 12 years.  I don't like dancing with anyone but my partner and my coaches -- social dances make me want to go hide in the bathroom.  

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

The snippet above is endearing. Even if I have problem with that dancing. How can you like to dance if you don't like being around people?

 

 

 

 

Ballet?  Contemporary?

 

Also, I dance ballroom and have for over 12 years.  I don't like dancing with anyone but my partner and my coaches -- social dances make me want to go hide in the bathroom.  

 

 

I don't recommend Scottish Country dance anytime soon.  It is very social and you have different partners as a matter of course.

 

I have been known to dance to music by myself.  My son has asked me to stop on more than one occasion and we were not in public.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... a lot of gay people are just as guilty of this kind of thinking as straight people. My best friend was asked once why she hung around people like me - "they're all against us". Reportedly, she looked back at the person talking, said "us?!" with a look of disgust on her face and walked off. I love her. And if anybody thinks that means I want to bang her, fine. Go ahead. I really, truly and honestly do not care. I'm like Sherlock that way. :lol:

Someone once expressed shock and indignation when I mentioned that many of the people in our local vegetarian group aren't "real" vegetarians by her definition. It's that whole "Us vs. Them" mentality again -- stupid waste of energy, if you ask me.

 

The snippet above is endearing. Even if I have problem with that dancing. How can you like to dance if you don't like being around people?

 

But dancing in its purest form is a personal expression, isn't it?